Head and trunk mass and center of mass position estimations in able-bodied and scoliotic girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropometric tables are not applicable to calculate the scoliotic trunk mass and center of mass (COM). The purposes of this study were: (1) to estimate the head and trunk mass and COM in able-bodied and scoliotic girls using a force plate method, (2) to estimate head and trunk COM offset compared to those of the body, and (3) the use of mean ratios to estimate the head and trunk COM calculated in this study and that calculated according to a conventional three-dimensional (3D) method compared to the measured values. Twenty-one scoliotic and twenty able-bodied girls participated. The subjects stood upright with arms beside the trunk on a force plate that collected data at 60 Hz for a period of 5s. The anteroposterior and mediolateral positions of the body COM were obtained from the mean center of pressure values. The height of the body COM was estimated by the reaction board method. Afterwards a body segment was displaced and changes in force plate readings were recorded and applied to estimate the head and trunk mass and COM. Trunk offset was defined as the difference between the COM of the body and head and trunk. The measured head and trunk COM was compared to values obtained by the mean ratios calculated from this study and given by the conventional 3D method. The relative head and trunk mass and the anteroposterior trunk offset were larger in scoliotic girls. The force plate method gave similar results to measured COM values for both groups underlying its capability to provide a more accurate estimation of COM related values. Thus, the use of mean ratios of 0.5538 and 0.6438 obtained in this study to estimate the head and trunk mass and COM position in scoliotic girls can overcome the main drawbacks of current anthropometric methods, if direct measurements cannot be taken.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".